Purpose: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is beneficial to patients undergoing digestive surgery. However, its efficacy in patients undergoing open hepatectomy remains unclear. Methods: Consecutive patients scheduled for open hepatectomy were randomly assigned to undergo either ERAS or conventional postoperative management. The primary endpoint was the amount of time that elapsed before patients were considered medically fit for discharge (MFD) and length of hospital stay (LOHS). Secondary endpoints included morbidity, mortality, the time to first flatus, defecation, first walk, and freedom from infusion. Perioperative serum nutritional markers, insulin resistance, respiratory quotient (RQ), and resting energy expenditure (REE) were also assessed. Results: Between August 2014 and March 2017, 57 patients were randomized into 2 groups; ERAS group (n = 29) and conventional management (n = 28). The median MFD was not significantly different between the ERAS and conventional management groups (6.5 vs. 7 days; P = 0.381). Recovery from gastrointestinal paresis was significantly quicker in the ERAS group (1.8 vs. 2.4 days; P = 0.004). There were no significant differences in serum markers, insulin resistance, RQ, and REE. Conclusion This trial did not demonstrate greater efficacy of the ERAS protocol following open hepatectomy in terms of the MFD and LOHS. However, the ERAS protocol was associated with better recovery from postoperative gastrointestinal paresis, suggesting that it is useful for patients undergoing open hepatectomy.

The Japanese Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery launched the clinical practice guidelines for the management of biliary tract cancers (cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder cancer, and ampullary cancer) in 2007, then published the 2nd version in 2014. In this 3rd version, clinical questions (CQs) were proposed on six topics. The recommendation, grade for recommendation, and statement for each CQ were discussed and finalized by an evidence-based approach. Recommendations were graded as grade 1 (strong) or grade 2 (weak) according to the concepts of the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation system. The 31 CQs covered the six topics: (1) prophylactic treatment, (2) diagnosis, (3) biliary drainage, (4) surgical treatment, (5) chemotherapy, and (6) radiation therapy. In the 31 CQs, 14 recommendations were rated strong and 14 recommendations weak. The remaining three CQs had no recommendation. Each CQ includes a statement of how the recommendations were graded. This latest guideline provides recommendations for important clinical aspects based on evidence. Future collaboration with the cancer registry will be key for assessing the guidelines and establishing new evidence.